In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside the award given by the Labour Court due to a significant delay of 13 years in raising the Industrial dispute by the respondent and highlighted the implications of undue delays in seeking legal remedies.
The dispute relates to 1996 when Mr Desai(Respondent), who was employed as a bus driver, encountered an accident with a private bus while driving. He somehow made a compromise with the owner of the private bus, but disciplinary proceedings were nevertheless initiated against him resulting in his dismissal in 1998. He also filed two appeals against the order of dismissal, which were dismissed in 2001. However, in 2014 he again appealed the same, and the Labour Court ordered for Desai’s reinstatement in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and payment of 30% back wages.
The petitioner argued that the Labour Court should have dismissed the reference due to the gross and inordinate delay of 13 years in raising the industrial dispute. He highlighted the prejudice caused to the petitioners’ case due to the long delay, preventing them from presenting evidence effectively. Also, the Labour Court has erred in awarding the 30% back wages for twenty years without considering the significant delay.
On the other hand, Mr Lad representing the respondent pointed out that there is no specific limitation period prescribed for raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act and it can be raised ‘at any point of time’. Countering the petitioners’ argument, Mr Lad pointed out that the petitioner has filed various documents to support his contentions. He also asserted that the Labour Court had considered the delay and had appropriately awarded the respondent only 30% back wages. He argued that the delay should not affect the overall resolution of the dispute. Respondent supported his arguments by referencing Sapan Kuamr Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board 2001(5) SC 235, Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M., Instrument Design Development &Facilitiies Centre & Another and many more.
Honourable Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgement and scrutinised the delay of 13 years in raising the industrial dispute. While acknowledging that the Industrial Dispute Act does not prescribe a specific limitation for raising disputes, the court emphasised that the dispute which is settled and does not survive on the date of making the order of reference cannot take advantage of section 10 of the I.D Act. the court referred to various judgements of Apex court: Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Workmen, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455.
Also, the court highlighted that the Labour Court had committed an error in awarding the respondent 30% back wages even after a gap of 20 years. Justice Marne criticized the Labour Court for not adequately considering the impact of the delay on the MSRTC, particularly regarding the preservation of evidence and the corporations’s financial implications.
The judgement reaffirmed the principle that parties must act promptly in pursuing industrial disputes.
CASE NAME: SUBHASH MAHADEV DESAI Vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MSRTC, CENTRAL BUS DEPOT, KOLHAPUR
NAME: SHOBITA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B(SEM 6), COLLEGE: GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments